Author
Topic: EM Drive Developments Thread 1 (Read 872940 times)

You know what? I think I'm wrong on the Nordtvedt effect now. It is referring to gravitational self energy. I must make sure I use very precise terms from now on. This is not the same component of self energy as the self energy of covalent bonds. That is something I've never heard of.

Mea culpa

Your argument still stands, but I disagree, without salient evidents, so far......

I think this means that the Nordtvedt effect doesn't apply to the Woodward effect either. He isn't adding or subtracting GRAVITATIONAL self energies to anything. He's playing in the realm of electrodynamics.

I need to find X effect, which would be observed if the covalent self-energy of a body contributed to its rest mass but not its inertial mass.

I'm also assuming it is safe to say that Gravitational Mass can never be separated from Rest Mass, that they are invariant. I think it is safe to say that indeed gravitational self energy does indeed contribute to inertial mass, and that may not be the only thing or the only way which in which mechanisms contributes to inertial mass, in our universe, either way gravitational self energy DOES. Verified by experiment. Modify the universe, say like in the emdrive's conical cavity. The rules are different. I put a 3d model and explanation on the last page demonstrating this.

You charge the cap then discharge the cap. Do it fast and you have an oscillator and it becomes RLC.

I thought that was just on and off with the current always flowing in the same direction.

Current flows in on charge, and out on discharge. Opposite. It happens on a curve. You can plot it by the equations of capacitive reactance , inductive reactance, or together combined with resistance, you get impedance. Both are calculated differently depending if it is a series or parallel circuit.

I would say, assuming it's possible at all to "burn" DM mass into energy, a few % of c, but with unlimited delta V (since feeding on the way)

At least I get the Bussard ramjet idea. More or less, you don't have to carry your "oxidiser", but you do have to carry your "fuel". I think.

Quote from: frobnicat

But the problem is the density that is so little that indeed you have to get to a few % of c before mass flow is significant enough to get decent thrust. In this sense this is like a usual ramjet, needs some initial velocity.

Which is why I added the boom-boom Orion stage. Fission propulsion has been more or less worked out in the 50's and 60's (probably by 1953 no doubt), but I don't think fusion propulsion has been worked out to the same extent.

Assuming we know how to field capture DM on large spans, that we know how to burn DM.

Thanks for the better terms: Field capture of DM on large spans. And net fishing DM on large spans with fields.

Quote from: Frobnicat & Mulletron

To be clear : this rectifier effect hypothesis had nothing to do with DM...

No, I got that. I'm just designing that spacecraft which uses the "rectifier effect hypothesis". While you don't need an evacuated glass container for the "tube", there would be a lot of mass, and a large size associated with the spacecraft.

Riffing off of caffeine at the moment, I'd guess that you'd need several families of VonNeuman devices, spread out over a large area, fed material some how, and powered, somehow, in order to build the spacecraft.

Which, to my mind, gets back to wondering briefly, on the BOE, how big would that spacecraft have to be? Both the DM ramjet and the rectifier effect ones.

Riffing on the spacecraft scale for a sec: Those tubes would be kilometers in diameter? no?

You're missing the point of the axion approach. The experiments are looking for photons appearing within an oscillating magnetic field by adding energy to theoretical dm axions. These axions were weakly interacting. Until they became photons! Do this within a metal cone and (?if the theories about cosmological derived inertial mass are true) then profit!

I admit to glossing over the axion discussion. I'm a pretty good typist, but you guys are far, far faster readers. Will rectify mea culpa on that.

Your pic doesn't look like a 45 degree cone, and what are the dimensions? How about energy going in, and acceleration in the pointy direction?

Solo chiedendo.

It is 45 degrees. The dimensions are based on the operating frequency. Do the math. The actual size are irrelevant in this discussion. It is all waveguide theory. The stuff I put up a few pages back about how many half wavelengths across and around the thing. House knowledge. As far as energy going in, me must separate terms here. Energy is in terms of frequency. RF power is a function of photon flux. Flux doesn't affect size of the thing, just the dielectric breakdown and heat/arcing sparking effects.

...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....

This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:

p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>

It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?

...regardless of the dielectric's acoustic geometry, M-E physics cannot explain thrust from a DC signal. It can explain thrust impulses from switching transients, and AC signals, but not DC. You've been reading the paper recently so you should be able to tell more easily than I whether the setup meets the criteria to be acting as a MET....

This is very useful information, thank you. Could you be so kind as to review the following excerpt from the NASA Eagleworks report and let us know your opinion of whether "M-E physics" can explain thrust from the following signal:

p.8 <<During testing, the Test Engineer controls the RF frequency generation via a 0-to-28 volts dc power input to a voltage-controlled oscillator (VCO). The VCO RF signal output is passed to a variable voltage attenuator (VVA), the output of which is controlled by the Test Engineer via a 0-to-17 volts dc power input. Based upon the VVA output, the amplifier will output up to approximately 28 watts. Amplifier output passes to a dual-directional coupler (DDC), which allows forward and reflected power measurements to be obtained as the power is simultaneously passed to the test article input port. The Test Engineer monitors forward and reflected power and adjusts the input frequency to obtain the desired combination of cavity frequency and power delivery to the cavity.>>

It's DC, so M-E theory cannot explain constant thrust from such a setup unless there is significant ripple in the signal. There's no data about ripple here. M-E theory could explain thrust form switching transients here. Did this experiment generate constant thrust or thrust impulses during switching?

Thank you Ron, your answer is very useful information to further understand this.

My analysis of the Eagleworks data is that at this point in time it is not clear whether what they measured was indeed due to a constant thrust force from the EM drive they tested, or whether it was an artifact. For example their own data (p.18 of their report, see attached data: the last two rows) has examples showing that increasing the power input by a factor of 6 did not increase the thrust force at all (the thrust force actually decreased by 10% when the power was increased from 2.6 watts to 16.7 watts). This is very concerning regarding Eagleworks using the specific force defined as the ratio of the thrust force divided by the power input as a scaling measure for predicting future scale up of these drives.

Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.

Bingo!

Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!

And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem

Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.

Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.

Figure 22 on page 18 worries me. That upward slope over 30 seconds while the rf was on and a slow fade after rf was off says heat was the cause. 70uN thrust/60uN heat.

Bingo!

Yes, that's the coupling between the magnetic damping and the field from the power cable I have been writing about. Notice that the coupling is HUGE. By their own admission the "null" signal is 25% of the good signal !!!!!

And they subtract the coupling "null" signal as if the problem would be linear. They do not take into account any nonlinearities. There is no finite element (No COMSOL) analysis of the magnetic coupling problem

Yeah all the modes show some heat or something else too.

Yes, but it looks like there is something real exciting the system. The only argument I see now for an artifact would be that the magnetic damping is interacting with the power cable AND the dielectric effect. Because they measure no thrust without the dielectric. And because flipping the orientation of the dielectric flips the direction of the thrust. So if it is an artifact one would have to explain it as a result of the magnetic fields (from the damping and the power cable) interacting with the dielectric.

Can you explain this bolded above in further detail?

A better (but longer) worded statement is that rotating the tested article by 180 degrees around a vertical axis, flipped the direction of the measured thrust force so that it now occurred in the opposite direction (resulting in approximately the same absolute magnitude but with opposite sign). Just like rotating a car heading North (in forward drive) by 180 degrees around the vertical axis will make it now head South (when operating in forward drive).

Okay, so they flipped the entire test article. I thought you were saying they had reoriented the dielectric inside the test article.

Flipping the test article does work for isolating any coupling from the power leads, which you had previously been concerned about.

We had another discussion a few pages back on the precision of our language and it was decided that the whole test article was flipped, not the dielectric. This is the language in the paper. And the pics show it flipped anyway.